2023 Ohio 893
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Hammond filed a domestic-violence civil protection order (DVCPO) petition on Dec. 2, 2021 alleging Sait stalked and harassed her and her partner over several years; an ex parte DVCPO issued the same day.
- The contested incident occurred Nov. 24, 2021 at the Draught House bar; security footage shows Sait kissing Hammond’s then-boyfriend and Hammond subsequently striking Sait.
- Multiple witnesses testified at the January hearing; testimony and the video were inconsistent about who initiated physical contact and whether there was an ongoing pattern of harassment.
- The magistrate initially indicated she would deny the DVCPO at the hearing, but after “further consideration” later entered an order granting the DVCPO (March 10, 2022) and requiring Sait to surrender deadly weapons.
- On appeal the Seventh District held the record did not show the statutory level of “mental distress” required for a DVCPO (only mere stress/annoyance shown) and reversed and vacated the DVCPO; the weapons surrender order was rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly entered a DVCPO under R.C. 3113.31 (menacing by stalking/pattern causing mental distress) | Hammond argued Sait engaged in a pattern of conduct (stalking/harassment, bar incidents) causing her fear and mental distress, supporting a DVCPO by a preponderance of the evidence | Sait argued the evidence did not meet statutory "mental distress" (no substantial temporary incapacity or changed routine), testimony was inconsistent, video showed Hammond struck Sait, and overall proof was only annoyance | Court: Reversed — record lacks competent evidence of the statutory "mental distress" required for a DVCPO; issuance was a miscarriage of justice |
| Whether ordering Sait to surrender deadly weapons was proper | Hammond requested weapons restrictions as part of relief | Sait argued order lacked support (and appealed DVCPO generally) | Court: Moot after reversal of the DVCPO |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for protection orders)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review and appellate deference)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (weight-of-the-evidence reversal requires manifest miscarriage of justice)
- Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (presumptions in favor of factfinder; credibility determinations)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (trial court best positioned to judge witness demeanor)